Department of Fun Project‑class Bottom‑importance

This page is supported by the Department of Fun, which aims to provide Wikipedians with fun so that they stay on Wikipedia and keep on improving articles. If you have any ideas, do not hesitate to post them to the discussion page or access our home page to join the Department of Fun.Department of FunWikipedia:Department of FunTemplate:WikiProject Department of FunDepartment of Fun Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Bottom This page has been rated as Bottom-importance on the importance scale.

Template:Multidel

Archives

1, 2, 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 210 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.

Please see also the proposed project m:Wikicommunity. Sarsaparilla (talk) 14:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the word association games have been deleted without being tagged. Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 October 25#Wikipedia:Sandbox/Word Association/Ultra Game and make any comments you wish there. Thryduulf (talk) 13:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Argh. Those games have been in existence for a long time and have been continually active. In the first place they should have been under DoF subpages, not /Sandbox... And another thing.. these pages fill a niche, they are a part of the Dept. of Fun, and the Dept. of Fun has a place on Wikipedia.. and I value the fact that Wikipedia has something for everybody.. and that people enjoy Wikipedia enough to have fun on it.. and create interesting link association activities that help them explore our wonderful site. These Word association games specifically are more for the readers anyway, not editors, so we shouldn't be complaining. They help readers find interesting articles to read, it's entertainment, part of the fun of Wikipedia.. Sure, let's be complete poopers and take that away from them. Editing Wikipedia is recreation.. It's meant to be fun.. Let's not get so presumptuous to think that has nothing to do with building an encyclopedia. Personally, I'm happy that we have such bright people as to want to play games on an encyclopedia rather than mindless shootemups! </end rant> -- œ^™ 01:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am in favor of moving the word association games here. Just wondering, how will people know they have been moved, though? — Michael J 03:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, because the old name will still redirect? -- œ^™ 13:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia talk:Sandbox/Word Association#Suggest move to DoF -- œ^™ 15:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We're offering a coupon for a free promo card for the trading card game we've been working so hard to develop over the past few years. We anticipate a release within the next few years. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that this coupon is only to be printed out by those holding events for the anniversary, to be distributed at said events. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 04:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I won't be attending events this year...maybe at 15 years. Unfortunately, I don't have the facility needed to host an event for the handful that might live in my metro-- I've never once met anyone from Evansville who edits Wikipedia. So, since I'm not attending, I see no reason to keep people from obtaining it. The coupon will only be available until the 17th (to allow for the 15th to end in Hawaii), and then it will be deleted. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You make a very good point, and I can't believe that I didn't think of it. :) ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 06:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You nearly denied yourself a promo card, didn't you? Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. :) ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 23:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you know that "decennial anniversary" is a pleonasm. —Tamfang (talk) 01:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shhh! I wanted to see if he would notice (not really; I didn't notice either). ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 01:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there should be a game/activity thing where somebody has a Wikimedia Commons picture of some sort of animal doing something odd, and based on that picture users come up with the edits that animal would make if it possessed the ability to use the computer. Brambleberry, RiverClan Medicine Cat ^{Visit ♠ Follow} —Preceding undated comment added 23:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Sure, who can find the cutest picture for the caption, "Cat, the other white meat"? RJH (talk) 19:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just have to say that I absolutely LOVE the idea of the Department of Fun! --Likestodraw (talk) 04:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, yeah. It's a cool article. ReginaldTQ (talk) 20:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have just created a new article called Wikipedia: Wikilinkitis, which drew inspiration from Wikipedia: Editcountitis. I know it is not much at present, but would any one like to look at it to improve it. After all, it could get recommended for deletion if it does not get improved. I shall therefore be grateful if any one could improve it. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me make another BJAODN article? The article is entitled Wikipedia:BJAODN 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myrtle Milka (talk • contribs) 12:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia:Editcountitis" has been moved to "Wikipedia:Obsessive Edit-counting Disorder". Discussion as to which is the best name can be found at Wikipedia talk:Obsessive Edit-counting Disorder#Praise for the new name. benzband (talk) 16:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

cool ReginaldTQ (talk) 04:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the bottom– importance category is getting overly crowded. We may have to add a "bare bottom" category to make more room. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Jesse V. (talk) 18:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What would go in the "bare bottom" category? Brambleberry of RiverClan ^{Chat ♠ Watch} 18:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not Wedgie, but perhaps Debagging, Mooning and Bare-ass? Regards, RJH (talk) 19:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very funny. What I'm saying is that if you make a new category there has to be certain criteria to separate it. Therefore, maybe active DoF pages would remain "bottom" while inactive moved to "bare bottom". Brambleberry of RiverClan ^{Chat ♠ Watch} 19:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. RJH (talk)

Since in the "Food WikiLove" category there's a "cheezburgr", commonly associated with Lolcats, should there be a template in animal WikiLove for an Lolcat? Brambleberry of RiverClan ^{Chat ♠ Watch} 17:23, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

+1 benzband (talk) 15:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

+1 I think there should be one. --_Macbookair3140 15:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done To both of you: It has been created! Template:Lolcat Brambleberry of RiverClan ^{Chat ♠ Watch} 19:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have an overwhelming amount of WikiFauna, and some of them differ greatly in terms of article length and insight. For example, WikiDragon is much longer and deeper than WikiMule. Therefore, I believe that we should have a standard "skeleton" of headers and subheaders for WikiFauna that all will fill in. I was thinking of a cross between WikiDragon and WikiPuma, as they are two of the longest WikiFauna articles, and while they both share some, like "Attributes, Values, and Powers", they differ in some. For example, WikiPuma doesn't have "Theories on origin" or "Taxonomy", but WikiDragon doesn't have "Juveniles" or "Overworking". Agreement? Disagreement? Comments? Brambleberry of RiverClan ^{Chat ♠ Watch} 13:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE! I created an example of the skeleton as well as a base of what should go there at my sandbox. Is there anything I should do? Brambleberry of RiverClan ^{Chat ♠ Watch} 16:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are we having fun yet? Regards, RJH (talk) 15:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we vote on the top 10 lamest edit wars in the history of Wikipedia (if you don't know what I'm talking about, Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars will tell you everything about lame edit wars). The purpose of this is to have a special section on the page where the lamest of the lamest edit wars are documented. The guidelines are below:

1. You may vote for up to 5 edit wars. Your top pick (the very lamest edit war, in your opinion) gets 5 points, your second pick gets 4 points, and so on, down to your fifth pick, which gets one point.

2. At the end of the vote (a week from now or after 15 people have voted, whichever comes later), the 10 edit wars with the most points will be the "winners", in order of points scored (the edit war with the most points out of every edit war in wiki-history will be considered the #1 lamest edit war, the one with the second-most points will be #2, and so on). The 10 "winners" will be moved to a special section of Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars to be recognized as the lamest of the lamest edit wars.

3. I will manage the vote; no one else needs to count points or move edit wars to the Top 10 section. You're welcome to help, but don't think I can't handle it.

4. Be specific when voting. Don't leave us in the dark; provide details, especially when the edit war is not listed on Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars (please also provide diffs when the war is unlisted).

5. For the purposes of this vote, wheel wars and deletion wars may be counted as edit wars.

6. Provide reasons for your votes, but be civil and don't provoke others.

7. Vote at the bottom of the section.

8. Questions?

I hope this vote is a fun project. Good luck! ChromaNebula (talk) 00:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I like it. I'll take my vote right now.

1. Bathrobe (image) - Come on, it started its own cabal!

2. Cow Tipping (image) - It ended with "A cow in its natural upright state", which in my opinion is almost as bad as the original "An unsuspecting potential victim?"

3. Grand Theft Auto IV (ethnic) - Because we all care about the nationality of a VIDEO GAME CHARACTER.

4. Cute (wording) - Because nothing is more important than deciding whether the word "cute" applied to something makes it NPOV.

5. Katie Couric (wording) - Let's just call her an entertaining journalist and be done with it. (And no, it is not necessary to mention that she drops "g"s at the end of words).

Hope that helped! Brambleberry of RiverClan ^{Mew ♠ Tail} 13:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]